Pro-Choice, or Pro-Life?

[VainZiler]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like, giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[Cyber Altair]

Pro-Choice for obvious reasons.

 

I don't really think the women should have a child she doesn't want. Besides this isn't the 15th Century, women should abort if they don't want the child but that's under circumstances such as a child with no father. Plus we don't want more stupid children into the world.

[Willieh]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

There are very few women who get raped and get pregnant as the outcome. Normally when a woman does get raped it's not during those special days of the month (when they are MOST LIKELY to get pregnant; not necessarily that they can't get pregnant).

 

I think that abortion should be a very very very last result if there are NO other options; even under the situation of them being raped or something.

[VainZiler]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

There are very few women who get raped and get pregnant as the outcome. Normally when a woman does get raped it's not during those special days of the month (when they are MOST LIKELY to get pregnant; not necessarily that they can't get pregnant).

 

I think that abortion should be a very very very last result if there are NO other options; even under the situation of them being raped or something.

 

Like I said, if it's the logical choice, then it is indeed the choice for the woman to make. If she sees no other way for herself or child then to get Falcon Punched, then so be it.

[Static]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

There are very few women who get raped and get pregnant as the outcome. Normally when a woman does get raped it's not during those special days of the month (when they are MOST LIKELY to get pregnant; not necessarily that they can't get pregnant).

 

I think that abortion should be a very very very last result if there are NO other options; even under the situation of them being raped or something.

 

Like I said, if it's the logical choice, then it is indeed the choice for the woman to make. If she sees no other way for herself or child then to get Falcon Punched, then so be it.

 

If we had sterilized our race, and had the antidote rationed, then I would agree that we would have no need for abortion. However, while people can have sex, and can get pregnant from it, they should be allowed to kill the mass that might become a child.

 

Plus, whats one less child out of 6.5 billion? One less Hitler? One less Einstein? It matters not.

[2sick4u]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

There are very few women who get raped and get pregnant as the outcome. Normally when a woman does get raped it's not during those special days of the month (when they are MOST LIKELY to get pregnant; not necessarily that they can't get pregnant).

 

I think that abortion should be a very very very last result if there are NO other options; even under the situation of them being raped or something.

 

Like I said, if it's the logical choice, then it is indeed the choice for the woman to make. If she sees no other way for herself or child then to get Falcon Punched, then so be it.

 

If we had sterilized our race, and had the antidote rationed, then I would agree that we would have no need for abortion. However, while people can have sex, and can get pregnant from it, they should be allowed to kill the mass that might become a child.

 

Plus, whats one less child out of 6.5 billion? One less Hitler? One less Einstein? It matters not.

Lol. If only abortion was around for Mary and Joseph..

Wouldn't that of been sweet. One less Messiah, anyone?

But, if we sterilized our race, the amount of "WTF" Complaints at Gp clinics would be amazing..

Meh..

Temporary sterilization won't do much, except give us more time.

Genocide still seems better.

[Static]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

There are very few women who get raped and get pregnant as the outcome. Normally when a woman does get raped it's not during those special days of the month (when they are MOST LIKELY to get pregnant; not necessarily that they can't get pregnant).

 

I think that abortion should be a very very very last result if there are NO other options; even under the situation of them being raped or something.

 

Like I said, if it's the logical choice, then it is indeed the choice for the woman to make. If she sees no other way for herself or child then to get Falcon Punched, then so be it.

 

If we had sterilized our race, and had the antidote rationed, then I would agree that we would have no need for abortion. However, while people can have sex, and can get pregnant from it, they should be allowed to kill the mass that might become a child.

 

Plus, whats one less child out of 6.5 billion? One less Hitler? One less Einstein? It matters not.

Lol. If only abortion was around for Mary and Joseph..

Wouldn't that of been sweet. One less Messiah, anyone?

But, if we sterilized our race, the amount of "WTF" Complaints at Gp clinics would be amazing..

Meh..

Temporary sterilization won't do much, except give us more time.

Genocide still seems better.

 

Obviously, but because Hitler killed Jews, the PEOPLE WHO OWN HALF OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, his ideals are passed off as bad.

 

If it weren't for the whole using the Russians and Jews as bad guys, and making genocide a painful thing so he could profit, he's actually not that much of an idiot. I mean, genocide is obviously the best choice, but after that whole thing, it just cannot be grasped by the public.

 

Since genocide is not an option, sterilization is our next bet, and since we have no proof other than a quote by Paul Ehrlich that this has even been considered, having abortion does not hurt. Besides, less people is better, so why not abort as many as we can. Might be menial, but its something.

[Willieh]

Ugghhh...I'm going to get flamed so bad after this; probably even hated by half of the members on this forum...

 

Genocide is passed off as bad when it comes to anyone. Not just Jews. We consider Genocide bad because for some reason we value human life more than those of animals. Slavery is looked at as a horrible thing; not because we have some other use in the Africans, but because they are human.

[silverlighted]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

If you're already thinking that abortion is bad, the action isn't mitigated from the circumstances, as tragic rape would be. Assuming you were to think that abortion is bad, you would probably be referring to the unborn entity as being a "life", something that's special. So if you're willing to allow abortion in cases of rape, you might as well be willing to allow abortion in all cases because there'd be nothing wrong with it. Same goes with the substandard domestic environment thing.

 

Ugghhh...I'm going to get flamed so bad after this; probably even hated by half of the members on this forum...

 

Genocide is passed off as bad when it comes to anyone. Not just Jews. We consider Genocide bad because for some reason we value human life more than those of animals. Slavery is looked at as a horrible thing; not because we have some other use in the Africans, but because they are human.

 

Yeah, I would think so. About the genocide I mean. It's the whole "sanctity of human life" thing.

[VainZiler]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

If you're already thinking that abortion is bad, the action isn't mitigated from the circumstances, as tragic rape would be. Assuming you were to think that abortion is bad, you would probably be referring to the unborn entity as being a "life", something that's special. So if you're willing to allow abortion in cases of rape, you might as well be willing to allow abortion in all cases because there'd be nothing wrong with it. Same goes with the substandard domestic environment thing.

 

I believe you misunderstood me. All I said, in a long dragged out way, was that logic should determine if abortion is the best option, and that the woman should be the one to make the choise. Simple as that. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you myself.

[Abstract [Atrocity]]

As I stated before, I'm pro-choice, but I just took into my account something that might skewer and fillet my ideas of right and wrong even further;

If my fiened (avvy one) got pregnant because something went wrong when her BF wanted some more wordly pleasure, I don't know where I would stand on this matter. It might be smarter to have an abortion, but doing so would cause her emotional stress, and the family will build emotions like doubt, lack of trust in her, and loss of compassion, ect., while at the same time her BF will dump her (based on how he acts, what he's like. He's not too much of a commited guy, he's in it for himself). Having the baby might do the same amount of damage to her as well; spending 9 months of ridicule at school, around the neighborhood as a 15-year old who got pregnant; then havig to have the baby without a marriedfather, and possibly dropping out of school to take care of it.

 

I might remain pro-choice, but in the end it all doesn't even matter.

[silverlighted]

I'm pro choice: Circumstances surrounding pregnancy isn't always black and white. There are many women whom get pregnant from rape: could you imagine what that'd be like' date=' giving birth to a child that was the result of a horrible, violent act? I sure as hell couldn't look at the kid without thinking about that.

 

And adoption isn't always best neither, there are plenty of cases where children adopted go to homes where they're either worse off then if the parents had kept them financially, or get abused in more ways then one.

 

But, on the flip side, a kid could be create simply because two teenagers couldn't keep their pants on, and now have to find a way to live with the outcome.

 

Thus, womans choice is best. Weighing the facts of circumstance to make a logical choice, whether to go through with birth, or abort.

[/quote']

 

If you're already thinking that abortion is bad, the action isn't mitigated from the circumstances, as tragic rape would be. Assuming you were to think that abortion is bad, you would probably be referring to the unborn entity as being a "life", something that's special. So if you're willing to allow abortion in cases of rape, you might as well be willing to allow abortion in all cases because there'd be nothing wrong with it. Same goes with the substandard domestic environment thing.

 

I believe you misunderstood me. All I said, in a long dragged out way, was that logic should determine if abortion is the best option, and that the woman should be the one to make the choise. Simple as that. Unless, I'm misunderstanding you myself.

 

Hmmm....hmmm....I'm not too sure if there is a misunderstanding or not.

 

I think it's cause you were looking at a more practical perspective:

You stated that the option of abortion should be determined through logic at the hands of the woman who would be having it.

 

I'm normally thinking under the idea of morality, whether or not abortion is morally permissible.

Whether or not it applies to your statement or not, my point as basically this:

If a person considers abortion to be a morally wrong action in itself. Then the person should recognize the action to be immoral, regardless of the context.

If a person considers abortion to be a morally permissible action. Then the person should recognize the action to be permissible in all circumstances.

 

I basically originally responded with this concept because you began with the notion that pregnancy's circumstances are not always black and white. I inferred (maybe incorrectly I admit, looking back at it) that you don't necessarily approve of abortion, but you admit that there are certain contexts that might warrant it and the woman should make that decision.

 

I've just realized that, of course, your train of thought could be entirely different, and my statements might not apply. If so, excuse the misunderstanding :D

[VainZiler]

I guess we don't have much of an understanding after all. If morality is part of your logic, more power to you, though personally, morality is just something that gets in the way of logic: you can't have true equality, and morals at the same time. And equality is something that I find logical.

[Static]

I guess we don't have much of an understanding after all. If morality is part of your logic' date=' more power to you, though personally, morality is just something that gets in the way of logic: you can't have true equality, and morals at the same time. And equality is something that I find logical.

[/quote']

 

YO THIS N*GGAS A MARXIST!

 

Props.

[VainZiler]

I guess we don't have much of an understanding after all. If morality is part of your logic' date=' more power to you, though personally, morality is just something that gets in the way of logic: you can't have true equality, and morals at the same time. And equality is something that I find logical.

[/quote']

 

YO THIS N*GGAS A MARXIST!

 

Props.

 

As in Karl Marx? Though I do agree with some of his views, I don't identify myself with him. Another thing I find logical, is individualism.

[silverlighted]

I guess we don't have much of an understanding after all. If morality is part of your logic' date=' more power to you, though personally, morality is just something that gets in the way of logic: you can't have true equality, and morals at the same time. And equality is something that I find logical.

[/quote']

 

Ah okay, then your position is clearer now.

True equality huh? And Morality's something that just gets in the way of logic because true equality can't exist with morals at the same time?

Hmm...interesting train of thought.

 

Logic is just a way to maintain consistency of thought. It just so happens that I hold some morals as premises, and when I normally engage with people under the topic of abortion, I normally identify their position in terms of what morals they hold, primarily whether or not they think abortion is moral or not. Sounds to me that you're not saying it's immoral, but you're not saying it's moral either. You're just saying that it's something that has nothing to do with morality at all. Did I hit it right? lol

 

Equality is logical? Do you really think so? Like I said, logic is just a system to maintain consistency. You're declaring that equality flows from a logical course of action. But there there has to be something else, some other justification of why you would think that way, about the nature of equality I mean.

But, I'm just talking in generalities now, lol...equality is a complicated term. Hell, I could declare right now that equality cannot exist simultaneously with diversity. But then, I'd probably be missing the primary gist of your views behind those statements on equality.

 

Oh, and, sorry if this post has a critical tone...it's not supposed to, but skimming it, I think it might. I just wanted to get into your mindset, not just your views on abortion, but your underlying thoughts about the "logical" reasoning behind it. ^^

 

[lol, and I like your comment about invidualism in terms of being linked with marxism, haha]

[VainZiler]

Trying to pry into my mind set is like trying to solve a rubik's cube. Even after assorting the six sides to their proper place, you're still left with six extreme differences.

 

The reason why I view morals as illogical when believing in true equality is because when you put equality with morals, you're left with a double standard. What may be a moral view point to some person, would be something that would be disagreeable with someones view of equality, and vise versa. Thus, be determining which is the most logical, morals or equality, you can set for yourself a single standard.

 

I view everyone from a step back, treating everyone the same. If I met Hitler, I'd treat him just the same as I would if I met Gandhi. Neither would get any form of special, or irregular treatment from my end. It's not until someone crosses me, that I tend to change my attitude, as revenge, to me, is logical. Though this in itself could be viewed as not being equal, it can be viewed as equal due to I believe in revenge against all whom cause wrong by you. If I do something to cross you, you have just as much right to seek vengeance against me as if the flip side has happened.

 

I believe the late George Carlin said it best:

 

"I think we either have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please, but if I do something you don't like, you have the right to kill me."

[silverlighted]

Trying to pry into my mind set is like trying to solve a rubik's cube. Even after assorting the six sides to their proper place' date=' you're still left with six extreme differences.

[/quote']

 

Forgive me, lol, I don't quite see how the rubik's cube metaphor applies but....moving on.

 

The reason why I view morals as illogical when believing in true equality is because when you put equality with morals' date=' you're left with a double standard. What may be a moral view point to some person, would be something that would be disagreeable with someones view of equality, and vise versa. Thus, be determining which is the most logical, morals or equality, you can set for yourself a single standard.

[/quote']

 

What if your view of what would be a logical course of action is disagreeable with someone else's? What if your understanding of equality is disagreeable with someone else's? It's not necessarily a single standard....

Unless, one of you is wrong, right?

Can't the same thing go when someone's moral viewpoint clashes with someone's view of equality?

Someone might be wrong. And I guess, I'm uninconvinced that you can't have a view of equality that is consistent with a view of morality.

 

Okay, this is a crappy, but simple example, but take the oft repeated golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Isn't this moral symmetry at its finest?

Hm, but what about a person who treats other people terribly because they want the same thing...

Well, then that'd be an argument dealing with human nature, wants, happiness, and all of that jazz, and that's what I meant from my last post of how, you can say something's logical, but it's tied down to premises that you probably take for granted. Logic does not necessarily lead to one end, a single standard.

 

I view everyone from a step back' date=' treating everyone the same. If I met Hitler, I'd treat him just the same as I would if I met Gandhi. Neither would get any form of special, or irregular treatment from my end. It's not until someone crosses me, that I tend to change my attitude, as revenge, to me, is logical. Though this in itself could be viewed as not being equal, it can be viewed as equal due to I believe in revenge against all whom cause wrong by you. If I do something to cross you, you have just as much right to seek vengeance against me as if the flip side has happened.

[/quote']

 

Hm, because you hold revenge as an act that balances the scales, right? Between you and the other. Yeah, that is pretty equal. But now you've run into a problem. You and the offending party are unbalanced. But if you treat the offending party like they treated you to balance this, that means your treating them is different from the way you're treating hypothetical Hitler and Gandhi. There is equality within the relationship between you and the offender, but there isn't equality amongst your relationships with these 3 people.

There's a double standard here...without the need of a motivating moral principle (well, in this context, one could always argue that you're being motivated by a moral, but I'm ignoring that angle so far for the sake of leaving this argument as simple as I can possible allow myself, lol)

 

I believe the late George Carlin said it best:

 

"I think we either have unlimited rights' date=' or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean towards unlimited rights, I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please, but if I do something you don't like, you have the right to kill me."

[/quote']

 

I hope the right to kill is equivalent to the dislikable action, lol.

[VainZiler]

What if your view of what would be a logical course of action is disagreeable with someone else's? What if your understanding of equality is disagreeable with someone else's? It's not necessarily a single standard....

Unless' date=' one of you is wrong, right?

Can't the same thing go when someone's moral viewpoint clashes with someone's view of equality?

Someone might be wrong. And I guess, I'm uninconvinced that you can't have a view of equality that is consistent with a view of morality.

 

Okay, this is a crappy, but simple example, but take the oft repeated golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Isn't this moral symmetry at its finest?

Hm, but what about a person who treats other people terribly because they want the same thing...

Well, then that'd be an argument dealing with human nature, wants, happiness, and all of that jazz, and that's what I meant from my last post of how, you can say something's logical, but it's tied down to premises that you probably take for granted. Logic does not necessarily lead to one end, a single standard.

 

Hm, because you hold revenge as an act that balances the scales, right? Between you and the other. Yeah, that is pretty equal. But now you've run into a problem. You and the offending party are unbalanced. But if you treat the offending party like they treated you to balance this, that means your treating them is different from the way you're treating hypothetical Hitler and Gandhi. There is equality within the relationship between you and the offender, but there isn't equality amongst your relationships with these 3 people.

There's a double standard here...without the need of a motivating moral principle (well, in this context, one could always argue that you're being motivated by a moral, but I'm ignoring that angle so far for the sake of leaving this argument as simple as I can possible allow myself, lol)

 

I hope the right to kill is equivalent to the dislikable action, lol.

[/quote']

 

You indeed have good points, and as I stated, various parts of my views could be viewed as double standards themselves, pending how you perceive things. There really isn't much else I can state then I've already said, so I shall just tip my hat to you and call it a debate well done.

[silverlighted]

You indeed have good points' date=' and as I stated, various parts of my views could be viewed as double standards themselves, pending how you perceive things. There really isn't much else I can state then I've already said, so I shall just tip my hat to you and call it a debate well done.

[/quote']

 

lol, thank you for the rep. It's been a great debate on this side too. Listening to your views has been an enlightening one, and I'm glad that it remained civiled throughout.

 

It's a shame to find that the search for objective truth is such a tumultuous one, due to all of the different perspectives and all...but...must keep trying...haha